Advocates & Consumer Protection Act 2019; Implications on Medical Profession [Apex Court Judgement]
647 بار بازدید -
3 ماه پیش
-
Advocates and Consumer Protection Act
Advocates and Consumer Protection Act 2019; Implications on Medical Profession
Bar of Indian Lawyers through its President Jasbir Singh Malik vs D.K. Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases 2024
Supreme Court Judgement
The case of "Bar of Indian Lawyers through its President Jasbir Singh Malik vs. D.K. Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases 2024" revolves around whether legal services provided by advocates fall under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act (CP Act) of 1986, re-enacted in 2019. The primary issue is whether a complaint alleging deficiency in service against advocates can be maintainable under the CP Act.
Context and Arguments
Background:
Factual Matrix: D.K. Gandhi, the respondent, hired advocate D.K. Gandhi to file a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The dispute arose when the advocate allegedly failed to deliver a cheque to the respondent and instead demanded cash, leading the respondent to file a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum seeking compensation for mental agony and harassment.
Legal Proceedings: The District Forum ruled in favor of the respondent, but the State Commission overturned this decision, stating that legal services do not fall within the ambit of "service" under the CP Act. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) later reversed the State Commission's decision, prompting appeals to the Supreme Court.
Arguments by Advocates:
For the Appellants:
Unique Nature of Legal Profession: The legal profession is sui generis (unique) and cannot be equated with other professions. It is a noble profession with duties towards the court, the client, and society.
Autonomy and Regulation: The Advocates Act, 1961, and the Bar Councils provide a comprehensive regulatory framework, including disciplinary mechanisms, making the profession self-regulated.
Contract of Personal Service: Services rendered by advocates are under a "contract of personal service," excluding them from the definition of "service" under the CP Act. Advocates act as agents of their clients and owe fiduciary duties, which include respecting the client's autonomy and acting within the scope of authority granted by the client.
Risk of Unnecessary Litigation: Including advocates under the CP Act would lead to a surge in frivolous complaints, burdening the legal system and potentially compromising the independence of the Bar.
Against the Appellants:
Consumer Protection Scope: The respondent argued that the CP Act's broad definition of "service" should include legal services, ensuring clients can seek redress for negligence or deficiency in services provided by advocates.
Public Interest: Allowing complaints against advocates under the CP Act would uphold consumer rights and ensure accountability within the legal profession.
Court's Analysis and Judgment
Intention of the Legislature: The Court concluded that the legislature did not intend to include professions like law within the CP Act, which aims to protect consumers from unfair trade practices and unethical business practices, typically associated with commercial transactions.
Sui Generis Nature of Legal Profession: The Court emphasized the unique role of advocates, their duties to the court, and the regulatory framework under the Advocates Act, which provides mechanisms for addressing professional misconduct.
Contract of Personal Service: The services provided by advocates are categorized under a "contract of personal service," thereby excluding them from the CP Act's definition of "service."
The Supreme Court set aside the NCDRC's decision, ruling that complaints alleging deficiency in service against advocates are not maintainable under the CP Act, reinforcing the distinct and regulated nature of the legal profession .
Bar of Indian Lawyers through its President Jasbir Singh Malik vs D.K. Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases 2024
Supreme Court Judgement
The case of "Bar of Indian Lawyers through its President Jasbir Singh Malik vs. D.K. Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases 2024" revolves around whether legal services provided by advocates fall under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act (CP Act) of 1986, re-enacted in 2019. The primary issue is whether a complaint alleging deficiency in service against advocates can be maintainable under the CP Act.
Context and Arguments
Background:
Factual Matrix: D.K. Gandhi, the respondent, hired advocate D.K. Gandhi to file a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The dispute arose when the advocate allegedly failed to deliver a cheque to the respondent and instead demanded cash, leading the respondent to file a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum seeking compensation for mental agony and harassment.
Legal Proceedings: The District Forum ruled in favor of the respondent, but the State Commission overturned this decision, stating that legal services do not fall within the ambit of "service" under the CP Act. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) later reversed the State Commission's decision, prompting appeals to the Supreme Court.
Arguments by Advocates:
For the Appellants:
Unique Nature of Legal Profession: The legal profession is sui generis (unique) and cannot be equated with other professions. It is a noble profession with duties towards the court, the client, and society.
Autonomy and Regulation: The Advocates Act, 1961, and the Bar Councils provide a comprehensive regulatory framework, including disciplinary mechanisms, making the profession self-regulated.
Contract of Personal Service: Services rendered by advocates are under a "contract of personal service," excluding them from the definition of "service" under the CP Act. Advocates act as agents of their clients and owe fiduciary duties, which include respecting the client's autonomy and acting within the scope of authority granted by the client.
Risk of Unnecessary Litigation: Including advocates under the CP Act would lead to a surge in frivolous complaints, burdening the legal system and potentially compromising the independence of the Bar.
Against the Appellants:
Consumer Protection Scope: The respondent argued that the CP Act's broad definition of "service" should include legal services, ensuring clients can seek redress for negligence or deficiency in services provided by advocates.
Public Interest: Allowing complaints against advocates under the CP Act would uphold consumer rights and ensure accountability within the legal profession.
Court's Analysis and Judgment
Intention of the Legislature: The Court concluded that the legislature did not intend to include professions like law within the CP Act, which aims to protect consumers from unfair trade practices and unethical business practices, typically associated with commercial transactions.
Sui Generis Nature of Legal Profession: The Court emphasized the unique role of advocates, their duties to the court, and the regulatory framework under the Advocates Act, which provides mechanisms for addressing professional misconduct.
Contract of Personal Service: The services provided by advocates are categorized under a "contract of personal service," thereby excluding them from the CP Act's definition of "service."
The Supreme Court set aside the NCDRC's decision, ruling that complaints alleging deficiency in service against advocates are not maintainable under the CP Act, reinforcing the distinct and regulated nature of the legal profession .
3 ماه پیش
در تاریخ 1403/03/18 منتشر شده
است.
647
بـار بازدید شده